Belinda wrote: "I don't remember quoting any research about cigarette smoke being water vapour. I just asserted it! But also I said it was mostly water vapour, and I don't agree with its classification as a Class A carcinogen."
I respond: Actually Belinda according to the 1989 Surgeon Generals' Report (Figure 13) about 87% of the weight of cigarette smoke is a combination of water, carbon dioxide, and ordinary air. I believe its classification as a Class A carcinogen was far more a political than a scientific move. As of about 5 years ago when I last researched the particulars there were 6 Class A carcinogens in tobacco smoke, adding up, both mainstream and sidestream to a total weight of slightly less than one thousandth of a single gram. An ordinary martini puts out almost two thousand times that amount of a Class A carcinogen (ethyl alcohol) into the air in the space of an hour.
See:
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/330/7495/812#105082Most of the basis for the Class A designation came from meta-analysis of epidemiological studies that showed a very small absolute risk increase in lung cancer among those heavily exposed to secondary smoke for a lifetime: an increase of about one lung cancer for every 10,000 persons. Given the efficiencies of modern ventilation and filtration systems its likely that, EVEN IF we accept the EPA's figures as accurate and causal in nature, that secondary smoke would cause between 1 extra lung cancer per 100,000 exposed workers and 1 extra per 1,000,000 exposed... provided they worked in that environment for 30, 40, or more years.
Likewise I am wary of your comment that you are open to research that is not funded by tobacco companies. Provided the funding is acknowledged, all research has to show sound sources, methods and results. If all this passes peer review what does it matter where the funding comes from.
Knowing the funding source simply gives you a warning that you need to examine the research and the "slant" of its interpretation more carefully if it produces conclusions in line with the funders' interests. It's VERY important that researchers be open and honest about this for that reason though. In the past a lot of "tobacco industry" research wasn't, and today most of the "antismoking research" isn't (Antismoking researchers will usually state the sources openly but deny that they represent possible conflicts of interest.)
Don't put too much faith in "peer review." Princess, if I am wrong on this please correct me, but I believe "peer review" usually consists of just having the article read and reviewed by two or three people who are "experts" in the field and then returned to the journal with crticisms and a recommendation about publication. The British Medical Journal provides a somewhat truer "peer review" process through its "Rapid Response" mechanism in which many peers (and non-peers) can review, comment on, and criticize the research in question. If you follow the link on Helena in my previous post you'll see this process in action and also see one of its weaknesses: the authors of bad piece of research are not obligated to defend their work.
Michael J. McFadden
Author of "Dissecting Antismokers' Brains"
http://pasan.TheTruthIsALie.com